The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-07-08
JUDGE DEALY'S DECISION
ON THE MUCH DEBATED LONG
AND SHORT HAUL.
For the Second Time lie Decides for
the Railroads.&c. Supreme
Court Decision.

Judge D9aly, OF the United States
court at Portlsgd, Ore, handed down
his decision yesterday in the matter OF
the application Of the receiver of the
Oregon and California railway for in
stiuctions as to how he should con-
strue the long and short haul clause
OF the interstate commerce law where
water or rail competition enters as a
factor, and over which the court has
no Jurisdiction. The petition Of the
receiver contained two distinct propo-
sitions.
Tn ,frst was, whether under the in.
terstate commerce oct such rates can be
made for through traffic as will enable
the Oregon and California road to COM
pete for the same at points where
competition by water or rail exists, a.
though the rates for the long laul be-
tween Portland and San Francisco, or
intervening points, may be less than
those for shorter haul in the same
direction between said places or such
points.
The sec md proposition was. wheth-
er in conjunction with the Noithern
Pacific railroad or other Transports
ton lines, the Oregon and California
may meet the competition Of the Can
adian Pacific or other lines on trans.
continental business originating to the
north and east OF Portland, although
its share OF the through rate may oe
less than the LEGAL charges over the
road on its share Of the through rate
on competitive business between Port
land and san Francisco.
Judge Dealy prefaced his inetruc-
tons 10 the receiver, which we're in
fact the courts Interpretation OF the
law, by referring at considerable length
TO his decision in the case Of exparte
Koehler, made two years ago, in
which he authorized the receiver Of
the Oregon and California TO make
lower rates for a competitive lopg haul
than for a short haul, Notwithstanding
the act OF the Oregon Legislature OF
1884, known as the "Hoult law" which
prohibited corporations from charging
greater rate for carrying similar
property for a sh ort haul than for a
long one in the same direction. This
opinion" the court tsid, "has been be-
fire the world for more than two
ysars, and on account oil the import
ance Of the subject, has attracted some
attention, but, 80 far as / am aware,
II has received no unfavoTable criti-
cism, and time and reflection have
fally satisfied ms OF the justice OF the
ruling"
The court then took up the subject
matter OF the receivers petition flr in
stiuctiors and said: "The interstste
commerce law is intended, among
other things, to prevent diecrimina'
ton between long and short hauls, ex
cept where they are made under sub
stantially dissimilar circumstances and
conditions. In my judgment, Congress
in limiting the prohibition contained
in section 4, has recognized the rule
laid down In ex parte Koebler as ths
proper one. Freight carried TO or from
a competitive point is always carrie.
under substantially dissimilar circum
stances and conditions from that car
ried to or from non-competitiyep points
IN the latter case the railway make
its own rates. In the former case tn,
circumstances are altogether different
the power OF the corporation to maxi
rates Ia limited by necessities Of tn,
situation; competition controls tn,
charge. II must take what II can get
or, as YVES said in ex psrte Koehler
abandon the field and let II
trade 20 10 rust. Competi
ton may not be the onl,
circumstances that make the condi
tions under which long aud shor
bauls are performed substantially dis
similar, but II certainly Is the moo
obvious and most effective one, al,
must have been In contemplation b
Congress In the passage OF that &C
The court refers 10 the Union Pacifi
railway va. the United States no u.
662 and III, U. &. 1861 wherein IT,
company charged the government
LEGAL rates for Transporting Unite
States troops from Council Bluffs !
Ogden-such rates being higher tha
the Union PaciHc's share for sihroug
passenger TO San Francisco. Tn
question was decided in favor OF Ia
Union Pgcfc by he SupTeme Cour
which held az U. \. 1861 tie servic,
rendered by q railway company !
transporting local passengers from on
point on lis line 10 another 10 M
Identical with the service rendered
transporting through passenger oy'
the ssme rails. TIE decisions Of the II
preme Court In these cases wei
doubtless present In the mind OF Co
gress at the time OF the passage OF Il
Interstate commerce act, but undl
the interstate act mere differences
distance is not such q circumstance
will juttify q greater or even an ECU
charge for q short haul than lor
one, yet Congress must have conter
plated that there might be such q di
terence in the circumstances aitendir
long and short haul rs would NAL
II necessary for railway corporations
the retention and acquisition OF u
business for which Il Ia constructs
and operated, TO charge less for lor
haul than short one. Congress new
intended 10 make OF this act a pr
Z crustrian bed in which the conduct
the business Of roads engaged in I
teretate commerce shall be made
conform to one arbitrary rule witho
reference TO probable and even IN
yoidsble difference In condition ~
circumstances under which II must